- (1.) Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 12.03.3015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 94 of 2012. The learned Tribunal by means of order impugned has upheld the order of punishment awarded to the petitioner i.e. removal from service. The petitioner has challenged the order of punishment on the ground that it was in violation of Rule 14(1) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 which is extracted below: "Rule-[14] Special procedure in certain cases : Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 9 to 13:- (i) where any penalty is imposed on a railway servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or (iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit; Provided that the Railway servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case falling under clause(i). Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule."
(3.) In light of the aforesaid Rule he has submitted that he would have been given an opportunity of hearing before any penalty was imposed upon him. Thus he has claimed the violation of Rule 14(1) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.;